One does not have to get very far into this book before learning what its author, Robert Remini, thinks of its subject, Andrew Jackson. He concludes the Preface on page xvii: "He has my respect and undying gratitude." I immediately thought "Oh no, this is going to be a whitewash of Jackson and many of the unsavory things that he did." While it was not quite that, Jackson certainly came out looking much better than he deserved to, both then and now.
Throughout the book, Jackson comes across looking good at others' expense. This is especially noticeable concerning the two Presidents that he is sandwiched between: John Quincy Adams and Martin Van Buren. Remini clearly dislikes Adams, missing no opportunity to bash him for his treatment of Jackson (there is some legitimacy there, but it works both ways), his acerbic personality, and his bitterness towards Jackson. Instead of lauding him for being a loud voice against slavery, Remini treats it as a detriment - saying that Adams only introduced anti-slavery petitions in the House in order to stir up trouble. He actually equates - much as Jackson did - abolitionists with nullifiers (those who wished to nullify federal law when it did not correspond to what their wants were) by saying that both groups were ultimately out to destroy the Union. This is almost laughable in Adams' case given the scope of his career. While by most accounts Adams was a difficult person to deal with, he was on the right side of the slavery question. I'm not sure how Remini can think otherwise. Yet on page 406 he calls Adams' efforts in this area "disgraceful". On the very next page, he writes that Adams was "repudiated" by the voters in 1828. Adams should not have been given the presidency in 1825 by the House of Representatives in the first place, so I am not sure how much he was really "repudiated" four years later. I am not saying that Adams was a great President (he certainly wasn't); but his work after he left the presidency is hardly disgraceful.
As for Van Buren, Remini likes to refer to him as "little". Given that his nickname was "The Little Magician", I suppose this is acceptable, but Remini didn't seem to be doing this in a friendly way. Instead he chose to emphasize how Van Buren was most assuredly NOT like Jackson, and how the Presidency was too big of an office for him. Incidentally, he also says that of John Tyler, and somewhat of James K. Polk at the end. So, essentially, any President of this era not named Jackson was not very good. It reminded me of Star Trek where any other Captain is made to look weak and feckless next to Captain Kirk.
Remini also compares Jackson favorably with George Washington, saying that Jackson's northern tour was much more intimate than Washington's was due to Washington's notorious aloofness. On page 391 he writes that Jackson was America's "first genuine celebrity". Is this accurate? While Jackson was very much seen as an emblem of the common man, whereas Washington surely was not, how does that make him a "celebrity". I think that Washington was every bit the celebrity in his day, albeit one that people were afraid to approach. And what about Benjamin Franklin? He seemed pretty popular. I don't question Jackson's popularity, but I do question if Remini isn't undervaluing Washington and Franklin with that statement.
Remini also takes great pains to say that "Jacksonian Democracy did not represent a defense of slavery." (Page 343) He writes that it was not really about slavery because not all Democrats were slaveholders nor pro-slavery. Also, he argues that this movement was more about populism, about not allowing the economy to be controlled by wealthy businessmen, about people being actively engaged in civic matters and being more involved with various levels of government. I do agree that these other elements were part of the movement. Yet, many of Jackson's followers - and of course Jackson himself - either owned enslaved persons or were pro-slavery in sentiment. That's also not to say that no Whigs were pro-slavery. Certainly some were. But the Democratic party definitely became associated with being pro-slavery by the time of the Civil War, and I think it was well on its way to that by Jackson's time.
Speaking of slavery, Remini does not get into much discussion about Jackson owning black people. It is mentioned here and there, but Remini lets him off very lightly for this abomination, saying that we have to view Jackson in the context of his times. I do agree with that on principle - yes, judging someone from the 1830s by the standards of the 2020s is almost assuredly going to lead to criticism and dismay. Yet, it's not that simple either. Not everyone back then was a slave owner. Not everyone was pro-slavery. Jackson was still wrong to do it, even if he wasn't the only one doing it. I was not looking for Remini to launch off on him over it - I think that we have had too much of that in our own society over the last several years. Yet I don't want a defense of Jackson's actions either; I think Remini bends way too far over towards leniency in this area.
While we are on the negative side of Jackson, Remini really falls flat when writing about Indian removal. On page 413: "Among his other accomplishments, Jackson also acquired an enormous territory from the Indians... Americans today may flinch at that achievement, in view of the human suffering it involved among Indians, but Americans of the Jackson era recorded it with pride. More important, removal probably did ensure the survival of several southern tribes." It is difficult to think of a more dubious "achievement" or "accomplishment" than the wholesale removal of Native peoples from their ancestral lands, all so greedy white squatters could come in and take over. Remini even admits that Jackson was more concerned about getting the Indians off the land than he was about their welfare. He also allows that Jackson was racists towards them. You don't say! Sadly I do agree that forced removal, by that point, probably did keep some of the tribes from being totally annihilated. Whites were going to stop at nothing until they drove the Indians off the land by whatever means possible. Yet Jackson helped put all of this in motion and steadfastly pushed to banish the Indians to present-day Oklahoma. It remains a horrific injustice and one of the darkest stains on this nation's past, and Jackson has his fingerprints all over it.
Remini is somewhat critical of Jackson in an administrative sense - poor appointments, allowing the press of events to overtake his concentration to other matters, his obsession with killing off the Bank of the United States. Jackson rifled through Cabinet officers like crazy, because he kept picking the wrong people for the jobs. But he did face down the Nullification crisis with South Carolina, much to his credit. He also successfully avoided war with France over spoliation claims and payments. And he did make himself available to regular people, something that is unheard of today.
There is also a lot of focus on Jackson's personal life and his chronic poor health. Remini even includes one chapter just on what life was like in the White House during Jackson's residency there. I appreciated this coloring of the narrative. Despite the book being smaller print, and Remini writing chapters without any subheadings or breaks, the story flows easily. I think part of this was due to Jackson's out-sized personality. But also Remini is a talented writer.
Remini also spends a lot of time on Jackson's remaining years after he left office. I appreciated that he did not attempt to wrap things up quickly. Rather he went the opposite way and gave a pretty full picture of how Jackson spent his retirement and what his daily life was like. I do wish that he would have included an epilogue about Jackson's place in history and how subsequent presidents viewed him or learned from him. While not a hagiography, Remini is much too pro-Jackson for my liking. I acknowledge that Jackson was not all bad, and that he was a strong and influential individual in his time. But a more balanced treatment was in order for someone who proved so divisive throughout his exciting life.
Grade: C-